PC GAMESS-related discussion club

Joseph Flora
flora-joseph@sc.edu

Joe


On Fri Mar 7 '08, Alex Granovsky wrote
--------------------------------------
>Hi again,

>another thing which should be checked is whether you got the same electronic states/SCF solutions with both programs.

>Regards,
>Alex
>
>
>On Fri Mar 7 '08, Alex Granovsky wrote
>--------------------------------------
>>Hi Joe,

>>Taking into account that you are getting such a large energy differences, I think there are some errors in your input files for PC GAMESS and/or Gaussian. Could you please attach them to your message for our inspection?

>>Best regards,
>>Alex
>>
>>
>>
>>On Thu Mar 6 '08, Joseph Flora wrote
>>------------------------------------
>>>Folks,

>>>I compared PCGamess and G03W results of a small system with a transition metal and got disturbing results with default settings. I'm using DFT/B3LYP1, SBKJC for the transition metal, and 6-31G(d) for the rest of the atoms. Basis sets were explicitly specified and are identical. I get binding energy differences of 14-15 kcal/mole between PCG and G03W. I've changed nrad in PCG to be equivalent to that of G03W (and vice versa), and no appreciable change in results. LMAX is the same for both defaults. It appears that the main difference is caused by the transition metal. If I compare just the energies (some have said this is not valid because of differences in code - but binding energies should be similar), I get a 2.6 kcal/mol difference for the transition metal alone, 0.6 kcal/mole for the system without the metal, and 16.6 kcal/mol for the system with the metal. Any thoughts on why such large differences and how to reconcile the two?

>>>Thanks.

>>>Joe

This message contains the 14 kb attachment [ pcg001.7z ] DFT-comparison-pcg-g03w